Hello, As I was updating the copyright file in a package, I wondered if it would be useful to add an optional header (named "Binary-Package" or whatever), to state which binary package is using that file and license.
The rational is that sooner or later, we will want to use the machine-interpretable copyright file to validate packages freeness, license compatibilities and so on. Some sample scenario: Exemple 1: > File: doc/info/* > License: GFDL-NON-FREE > Binary-Package: none The package contains a file covered by a not-so-free license, but that file isn't used to build the binary file. And the file isn't shipped in the binary files. Exemple 2: > File: foo.c > License: GPL-2 > Binary-Package: foo > > File: bar.c > License: GPL-3 > Binary-Package: bar The source package contains some files covered by two incompatible license, but it isn't a problem because the binary aren't combined at build nor at link time (or example). Exemple 2: > File: foo.c > License: GPL-2 > Binary-Package: foo > > File: doc/info/* > License: GFDL-NON-FREE > Binary-Package: foo-doc-is-non-free The source package produces both a free and non-free package. This extra header would be completely optional, and only useful to white-list some specific situation. That's just an idea (a foolish idea?) Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
